Notice of Pre-AIA , AIA Status
The present application, filed on, after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed species are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because both the drawings and claimed species are indeed mutually exclusive in at least because the species I substrate heater is more broadly claimed without a process-specific reactor in species II. The difference is not trivial in that a “substrate heater” (species I) is found across many classes and CPC schema without a process-specific reactor. See for example (H05B3/48, H05B3/141, H05B3/06, H05B2203/013, H05B3/36, H05B3/283, H05B3/143, H05B3/46, H05B3/28, H05B2203/005, H05B3/18, H05B3/265, H05B3/86, H05B3/286, H05B3/26).cpc., 219/468.1.CCLS., 219/544.CCLS.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one, more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one, more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims require “insulating layer(s)” but does not distinguish between thermal insulation and electrical insulation. The claims are examined against the prior art as thermal insulation layer(s).
The term “withstand voltage” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “withstand voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 8 cannot be weighed against the prior art until Applicant clarifies what is a “withstand voltage”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication,, in public use, on sale,, otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsunaga; Tadao et al. (US 6256187 B1). Matsunaga teaches a substrate heater (4 Figure 7) comprising: a support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2) configured to be loaded with a substrate (“wafer” throughout); an insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) arranged under the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2); and a heating portion (12; Figure 7; column 4; lines 7-13-Applicant’s 300) arranged under the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) and configured to heat the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2), wherein the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) includes a plurality of layers (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 201,202), and wherein at least two of the plurality of layers (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 201,202) of the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) have different (column 10; lines 19-30) thermal expansion coefficients from each other, as claimed by claim 1
Matsunaga further teaches:
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 1, wherein: a first layer and a second layer of the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) are stacked alternately, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer and a thermal expansion coefficient of the second layer are different (column 10; lines 19-30) from a thermal expansion coefficient of the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 2
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 2, wherein the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) includes an even number of layers (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 201,202), as claimed by claim 3
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) is about 40 um to about 200 um, as claimed by claim 7. Layer 14 is no thinner than 20µm (column 6; lines 3-5) + Layer 16 is no thinner than 10µm (column 6; lines 19-26) + Layer 20 is no thinner than 5µm (column 6; lines 57-63) + Layer 42 is no thinner than 1µm (column 9; lines 1-5) = 36µm minimum.
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2) is about 0.5 mm to about 3 mm (column 7; lines 5-9), as claimed by claim 10.
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 1, wherein the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2) further includes an oxide layer on a lower surface thereof (column 9; lines 7-15), as claimed by claim 11
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga; Tadao et al. (US 6256187 B1) in view of Yin; Ming et al. (US 20210118692 A1). Matsunaga is discussed above and further teaches a thickness of some of Matsunaga’s plurality of layers (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 201,202) of the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) is about 10 um to about 25 um – claim 9. Matsunaga is discussed above but does not quantify Matsunaga’s “different” thermal expansion coefficient. As a result, Matsunaga does not teach:
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 2, wherein: the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is greater than the thermal expansion coefficient of the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2), and the thermal expansion coefficient of the second layer is less than the thermal expansion coefficient of the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 4
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 2, wherein: the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is about 4.5e-6/°C to about 8.5e-6/ºC, and the thermal expansion coefficient of the second layer is about 2.5e-6/°C to about 3.5e6/ºC, as claimed by claim 5
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 1, wherein an average thermal expansion coefficient of the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) is identical to a thermal expansion coefficient of the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 6
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 1, wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of layers (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 201,202) of the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) is about 10 um to about 25 um, as claimed by claim 9
The substrate heater (4 Figure 7) of claim 1, wherein: the insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) includes a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer, a thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2), a thermal expansion coefficient of the second layer is less than the thermal expansion coefficient of the support plate (22; Figure 7-Applicant’s 100; Figure 2), and a thermal expansion coefficient of the third layer is less than the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer and is greater than the thermal expansion coefficient of the second layer, as claimed by claim 12
Yin also teaches wafer platen (10) including multiple layers (12,14,15) with variable CTEs ([0021], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Matsunaga to optimize Matsunaga’s insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) CTEs and thicknesses as taught by both Matsunaga and Yin.
Motivation for Matsunaga to optimize Matsunaga’s insulating layer (42, 14, 16, 20; Figure 7-Applicant’s 200) CTEs and thicknesses as taught by both Matsunaga and Yin is for:
preventing delamination (“separation”) as taught by Matsunaga (column 1; lines 57-column 2; line 5)
preventing bowing as taught by Matsunaga (column 10; lines 19-30)
promote flat, planar surfaces as taught by Yin ([0003], [0020], [0031], claim 1)
optimizing layer thickness as taught by Matsunaga (see references cited in claim 7 above) and Yin ([0024])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5191506 A; US 6256187 B1; US 20020023914 A1; US 20020036881 A1; US 20020186967 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights